10:55, 17 August 2009
Last week’s flurry of media outpourings on Daniel Hannan’s comments on the NHS were interesting for several reasons. Firstly, my best friend went to university with him and we both derive much pleasure from watching his (Hannan’s) developing career.
Secondly, and more relevantly for the rest of you, it speaks to some of the comments I’ve previously made about the media’s representation of the European Parliament. Mr Hannan is not a naturally shy and retiring type and his pronouncements are legion (this is a man with not one, but two blogs to his name (plus his own Youtube channel)). However, prior to last week most people would not have heard of him in any context, despite heading the Conservative party’s list in the South East.
Even his wildly popular (in internet virology terms) speech to/at Gordon Brown in the EP in March (just below) really only made waves within the Tory grassroots and political circles, rather than more broadly.
So why did his comments on the NHS cause so much more uproar? Three suggestions. One, it’s the silly season and being told by Americans that the NHS is rubbish is a good story, especially when someone (Hannan) breaks ranks. Two, lots of people care about the NHS and to have any politician speak against it (even “unknown” Mr Hannan, as he was described in one piece) invites a torrent of comment that things-EU never will.
But thirdly, it’s about the distorted system of incentives that modern politics offers up. Hannan is playing to the gallery (both in the UK and the US). The media are focusing on conflict-driven views of the political system: even though Hannan will have no say or vote on the NHS in the EP, and I can’t see him coming to Westminster in a hurry, the media probe for party splits. Labour love it, because it’s “Tory splits”, Hannan’s role notwithstanding.
And us? well, I think we’re all complict too. Why else would I write a blog entry about it?
